 | « Back to article | Print this article |
"You (police) interrogate him (Amar Singh) for the 2008 cash-for-vote case. And during that you ask him informally if he had spoken to Shanti Bhushan, to which he tells you that Shanti Bhushan had come to his place and had spoken to Mulayam Singh on phone from there. And you are satisfied with this," Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vinod Yadav remarked to the counsel for police.
"You feel no need whatsoever of recording his statement formally. How will you prove all this unless you record his statement? The investigation is neither here nor there. You can claim anything but how will prove it?," asked Yadav.
The court made the remark as counsel for Shanti Bhushan, Ajit Singh contended that police should record the statements of Amar Singh and Mulayam Singh Yadav to prove its claim that Amar Singh had confirmed the part of conversation between him (Bhushan) and Yadav.
The special cell of the Delhi police had in August this year sought the court's permission to close the case, registered on Bhushan's complaint alleging that the CD was doctored and seeking a probe into its authenticity.
The police sought the closure of the case saying there was no substantive evidence to prove the offence of forgery (doctoring of the controversial CD), as alleged.
Bhushan's counsel also submitted to the court reports from two forensic laboratories, one from Hyderabad's Truth Lab and the other from an United States lab, opining that the CD was doctored and sought further investigation.
The counsel also submitted to the court Bhushan's letters to the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the Home Minister P Chidambaram and the commissioner of Delhi police, stressing upon the need for further probe into the CD issue.
The court has asked the police to look into the report submitted by Bhushan and file its reply on or before January 6, the next date of hearing.
Bhushan had filed his complaint at the I P Estate police station here on April 14, 2011 alleging that the CD, containing his purported conversations with Mulayam Singh Yadav and Amar Singh, was fabricated and had denied having any conversation with them. He had alleged that the CD was a "cut and paste job" to discredit the campaign for a strong anti-graft Lokpal Bill.
In the CD, Bhushan is purportedly heard telling Mulayam Singh and Amar Singh that his son Prashant can "manage a judge".